GridBrief was on site this week at the C3 Energy Summit, hosted by C3 Solutions, where senior federal officials, infrastructure developers, investors, and grid operators gathered to set priorities for the next phase of U.S. energy policy.
The binding constraint on U.S. energy is no longer innovation or capital. It’s time. Permitting delays and litigation risk now set the ceiling on what gets built. This issue captures the assumptions taking shape inside the room, before they become policy.
Major Stories
ADMINISTRATION AGENDA
Wright Uses C3 Summit to Lay Down the Administration’s Energy Agenda
Energy Secretary Chris Wright used his remarks at C3 this week to lay out how the administration is thinking about energy going forward. The focus was not new programs or targets, but throughput.
Energy policy should be governed “by humans and math,” Wright said, arguing that the core constraint facing the U.S. grid is no longer technology or capital, but the inability to permit and build infrastructure fast enough to meet rising demand.
Wright framed energy dominance as abundance. “Dominant means producing so much energy that you push prices down,” he said, tying affordability directly to industrial competitiveness and living standards.
On climate, Wright rejected policies that reduce domestic production only to export emissions. “You close a modern gas-powered factory in Germany and it moves to Asia as a coal-powered factory,” he said. “That’s not climate policy.”
He was equally blunt on nuclear. The U.S. proved it could build reactors at scale, tthen created a regulatory system that made doing so far more difficult. Safety wasn’t the core failure, Wright argued. Process and bureaucracy were.
Why It Matters - Wright is reframing energy policy around speed, scale, and price rather than symbolic targets. That shift elevates permitting reform and firm power from technical issues to central economic policy questions.
Grid Take - This was an agenda-setting moment. By treating electricity scarcity as the risk to avoid, the administration is signaling that build-rate and affordability will increasingly guide federal energy decisions.
PERMITTING REFORM
From Process Problem to Economic Constraint
If Wright set the agenda, the rest of the room filled in the consequences.
Infrastructure builders were blunt: permitting timelines now determine whether projects happen at all. Mike Howard pointed to the widening gap between construction time and approval time, noting that projects which take a few years to build can spend a decade in review and litigation. That delay, not materials or labor, is what drives cost overruns and investor retreat.
The tone here mattered. No one defended the current system. Permitting was discussed as a source of price inflation, reliability risk, and lost industrial investment.
Why It Matters - Permitting delay has quietly become a tax on energy consumers and a barrier to U.S. competitiveness.
Grid Take - Permitting reform is no longer a niche reform issue. It is being treated as a prerequisite for affordable power and grid reliability. Expect to hear about it more regularly.
AI & LARGE LOAD
Demand Is Here, and It’s Not Asking Permission
AI-driven load growth was treated as settled fact, not forecast. Rich Powell described the end of the flat-demand era, noting that electricity growth has already accelerated and is expected to remain elevated as hyperscale data centers and advanced manufacturing expand. These projects are firm, capitalized, and operating on compressed timelines.
Several speakers acknowledged a growing reality: large AI developers increasingly work around government first. They pursue self-generation, private deals, or location arbitrage before engaging regulators.
Why It Matters - When demand moves faster than institutions, planning assumptions break down.
Grid Take - AI developers are signaling that government can either help solve the problem or be bypassed. That dynamic is forcing faster adaptation inside utilities and agencies.
SIGNALS IN THE ROOM
What Senior Officials and Operators Said When They Stopped Performing
Not every insight from the C3 Summit fit cleanly into a single panel theme. But across discussions on permitting, AI load, and energy dominance, a consistent set of signals emerged from DOE leadership, infrastructure builders, and major energy buyers. These comments matter because they reflect how decisions are actually being made, not how they’re framed publicly.
Permits aren’t the real delay. Lawsuits are.
Chris Wright, U.S. Secretary of Energy, and Mike Howard, CEO of Howard Energy Partners, both emphasized that agency review timelines have shortened, but post-permit litigation is now the primary source of multi-year delay for pipelines, transmission, and generation projects.Executive action helps, but capital needs statutory certainty.
Greg Beard, Senior Advisor at DOE’s Office of Energy Dominance Financing, and Jarrod Agen, Executive Director of the National Energy Dominance Council, described aggressive use of executive tools to accelerate timelines, while acknowledging that long-lived infrastructure requires reforms written into law to survive political cycles.Courts have become de facto energy regulators.
Kyle Danish, Partner at Van Ness Feldman and Nonresident Fellow at CSIS, warned that judicial outcomes increasingly determine whether infrastructure gets built at all, often without consideration of grid reliability or national energy needs.Private capital is ready, if risk is bounded.
Energy investors stressed that pension funds, infrastructure private equity, and strategic investors are willing to finance generation and transmission, but only when permitting and litigation risk is predictable.Hyperscalers are being treated as grid actors, not customers.
Rich Powell, CEO of the Clean Energy Buyers Association, described a clear shift: large data-center developers are expected to self-supply power, fund transmission upgrades, and ensure they do not shift costs onto existing ratepayers.Transmission optimization is the fastest near-term win.
DOE officials and grid-focused speakers highlighted reconductoring and grid-enhancing technologies as the quickest way to unlock capacity while larger transmission projects remain stuck in permitting.NIMBY resistance is now bipartisan.
Speakers including Ann Bluntzer, CEO of the Hamm Energy Institute warned that nuclear, pipelines, transmission, and data centers are facing organized local opposition in both red and blue communities.The next fight is national necessity vs local veto.
Multiple panelists predicted a growing political clash as AI-driven load growth collides with community resistance to energy infrastructure, even in regions that depend on affordable power.
Grid Take
The energy bottleneck has moved from policy to process. The winners will be those who can navigate courts, calendars, and community politics — not just technology.
Upgrade to Grid Brief Premium to get extra deep dives into energy issues all over the world.
The Conversation
Quick Signals
The Build Coalition Is Real - Across Washington, building energy infrastructure has become a rare point of agreement. Years of project delays, rising prices, and AI-driven load are pushing permitting reform from theory into necessity.
DOE Is Acting Like a Delivery Agency - With massive loan authority and tax credits in hand, the Department of Energy is shifting from research support to project execution, actively courting developers who can move from proposal to construction.
AI Demand Is No Longer Debated - Utilities now treat AI and data-center load as inevitable, firm demand, forcing rapid revisions to forecasts, reserve margins, and interconnection rules. The flat-load era is over.
States Are Doing the Nuclear Work - While Washington talks, states are deploying real incentives for nuclear construction and life extension, reframing nuclear as a reliability and price-stability strategy.
Interconnection Is the Scarcity - Capital, fuel, and technology are available. Time in the interconnection queue is not. Grid growth is now constrained by process, not resources.
Things to Read
Bloomberg: Mexico’s Plan to Centralize Power Contracts Sparks Company Outcry
Mexico’s push to centralize electricity contracting is rattling private generators and foreign investors, highlighting the risks of politicizing power markets.Washington Post: Russia Intensifies Attacks on Ukraine’s Energy Infrastructure
Renewed strikes on Ukraine’s grid underscore how electricity systems have become frontline assets in modern warfare.Zacks: Two AI + Nuclear Energy Stocks to Buy Now
Investors are increasingly pairing AI growth with nuclear power as the most credible source of firm, long-term electricity for data centers.MIT News: Working to Eliminate Barriers to Adopting Nuclear Energy
A focus on regulatory and deployment barriers rather than reactor science reflects where the real nuclear bottleneck now lies.Slow Boring: A Bolder Vision for American Energy
A case for a more aggressive, build-oriented U.S. energy strategy centered on speed, capacity, and economic growth.
Chart of the Day
Permitting Timelines for Major Energy Infrastructure
This chart shows average years spent in permitting and environmental review before construction begins for major energy projects.
U.S. nuclear plants routinely spend more than a decade navigating licensing, environmental review, and litigation. Transmission lines, offshore wind, and pipelines follow close behind. By contrast, China typically clears nuclear plant approvals in roughly 12–18 months through a centralized review process.
The difference is not engineering capability or technology. It is how long a system takes to decide.
Source: BLM NEPA National Register; Council on Environmental Quality EIS Database; Federal Permitting Dashboard; GAO; FERC; Breakthrough Institute; World Nuclear Association; BloombergNEF.
Grid Take: When approval takes ten years, capacity never arrives on time — no matter how badly the grid needs it.
We rely on word of mouth to grow. If you're enjoying this, don't forget to forward Grid Brief to your friends and ask them to subscribe!